theflatline:jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt. I am only guilty if someone got hurt. And I can do it more than once.

He still gets fined or has his license suspended or whatever. He just can't have his bike stolen forfeited.

The ruling seems reasonable. I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse. It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.

Its ok for the police break the law via avoiding presenting evidence of criminal activity to a Judge in order to take peoples stuff, but when you want to confiscate the police equipment when they violate you, well tuff shiat.

TuteTibiImperes:It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

We've already got that -- it's called criminal forfeiture, and it's baked in to regular criminal proceedings. The idea that we needed a way for the state to seize property without the burden of proof due in a criminal proceeding is insane. There's a reason we added the 5th amendment and this property-as-a-legal-person concept of "civil forfeiture" is nothing more than an attempt to ignore those limitations.

Besides the obvious conflict of interest wherein law enforcement both makes an accusation of offense and gets to keep the proceeds of a successful suit and the differences in the burden of proof that swing things in favor of the state, there's also the issue that property used in a crime may not rightfully belong to the criminal which means that people not involved in the crime the property is accused of may lose their property to the state through no reasonable fault of their own.

RINO:TuteTibiImperes: The ruling seems reasonable. I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse. It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.

North Carolina is the only US state that requires that.

But you are forgetting how NC's law enforcement agencies are getting around the requirement. Instead of using state forfeiture laws they simply have the feds process it and then their agency gets kicked back a portion of proceeds from the sale of the seized items.

For true seizure reform to take place, all proceeds from the sale of seized items must go into the state's general fund and also criminalize any state agency from taking funds from a federal forfeiture under federal laws.

Billy Bathsalt:I think that if the cops seize your assets, they should be used to fund the educational system or something not cop-related. Otherwise, there is a strong temptation to abuse power for gain.

Some municipalities have exactly that kind of rule set up to prevent abuse. The cops found a way around it. They turn the assets over to the Feds, who have a revenue sharing program with local law enforcement.

Just two years ago, the province brought in legislation allowing for administrative forfeitures, meaning that the government doesn't have to go in front of a judge to take a suspect's property when it's worth less than $75,000. All the Civil Forfeiture Office has to do is publish a notice in a newspaper or the B.C. Gazette, and if the owner doesn't file a dispute within a set time, the property is automatically forfeited.

This isn't just Joe Blow doing 70 in a 65. Civil forfeiture only occurs with gross speeding in Canuckistan, 50+KPH over the limit if I recall correctly. At that speed, yes you should have your shiat confiscated as you could easily kill someone at that speed.

jayphat:And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt. I am only guilty if someone got hurt. And I can do it more than once.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).

This isn't just Joe Blow doing 70 in a 65. Civil forfeiture only occurs with gross speeding in Canuckistan, 50+KPH over the limit if I recall correctly. At that speed, yes you should have your shiat confiscated as you could easily kill someone at that speed.

TuteTibiImperes:The ruling seems reasonable. I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse. It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).